The Art of Studio Teaching

This project began in 2013, with the award of an internal QUT Teaching and Learning grant. The task we wished to undertake was to document and better understand the role of studio teaching practice in the Creative Industries Faculty. While it was well understood that the Faculty had long used studio pedagogies as a key part of its teaching approach, organizational and other changes made it productive and timely to consider how the various study areas within the Faculty were approaching studio teaching. Chief among these changes were innovations in the use of technology in teaching, and at an organizational level the merging of what were once two schools within different faculties into a newly-structured Creative Industries Faculty. The new faculty consists of two schools, Media, Entertainment and Creative Art (MECA) and Design. We hoped to discover more about how studio techniques were developing alongside an ever-increasing number of options for content delivery, assessment, and interaction with students. And naturally we wanted to understand such developments across the broad range of nineteen study areas now part of the Creative Industries Faculty. This e-book represents the first part of our project, which in the main consisted in observing the teaching practices used in eight units across the Faculty, and then interviews with the unit coordinators involved. In choosing units, we opted for a broad opening definition of ‘studio’ to include not only traditional studios but also workshops and tutorials in which we could identify a component of studio teaching as enumerated by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council’s Studio Teaching Project: • A culture, a creative community created by a group of students and studio teachers working together for periods of time • A mode of teaching and learning where students and studio teachers interact in a creative and reflective process • A program of projects and activities where content is structured to enable ‘learning in action’ • A physical space or constructed environment in which the teaching and learning can take place (Source: http://www.studioteaching.org/?page=what_is_studio) The units we chose to observe, and which we hoped would represent something of the diversity of our study areas, were: • Dance Project 1 • Furniture Studies • Wearable Architecture • Fashion Design 4 • Industrial Design 6 • Advanced Writing Practice 3 • Introduction to Creative Writing • Studio Art Practice 2 Over the course of two semesters in 2013, we attended classes, presentations, and studio time in these units, and then conducted interviews that we felt would give further insight into both individual and discipline-specific approaches to studio pedagogies. We asked the same questions in each of the interviews: • Could you describe the main focus and aims of your unit? • How do you use studio time to achieve those aims? • Can you give us an example of the kind of activities you use in your studio teaching? • What does/do these example(s) achieve in terms of learning outcomes? • What, if any, is the role of technology in your studio teaching practice? • What do you consider distinctive about your approach to studio teaching, or the approach taken in your discipline area? The unit coordinators’ responses to these questions form some of the most interesting and valuable material in this book, and point to both consistencies in approach and teaching philosophies, as well as areas of difference. We believe that both can help to raise our critical awareness of studio teaching, and provide points of comparison for the future development of studio pedagogy in the Creative Industries. In each of the following pages, the interviews are placed alongside written descriptions of the units, their aims and outcomes, assessment models, and where possible photographs and video footage, as well as additional resources that may be useful to others engaged in studio teaching.

Wear Next: An Exploration into the Future of Wearable Technology

Technology is increasingly infiltrating all aspects of our lives and the rapid uptake of devices that live near, on or in our bodies are facilitating radical new ways of working, relating and socialising. This distribution of technology into the very fabric of our everyday life creates new possibilities, but also raises questions regarding our future relationship with data and the quantified self. By embedding technology into the fabric of our clothes and accessories, it becomes ‘wearable’. Such ‘wearables’ enable the acquisition of and the connection to vast amounts of data about people and environments in order to provide life-augmenting levels of interactivity. Wearable sensors for example, offer the potential for significant benefits in the future management of our wellbeing. Fitness trackers such as ‘Fitbit’ and ‘Garmen’ provide wearers with the ability to monitor their personal fitness indicators while other wearables provide healthcare professionals with information that improves diagnosis. While the rapid uptake of wearables may offer unique and innovative opportunities, there are also concerns surrounding the high levels of data sharing that come as a consequence of these technologies. As more ‘smart’ devices connect to the Internet, and as technology becomes increasingly available (e.g. via Wi-Fi, Bluetooth), more products, artefacts and things are becoming interconnected. This digital connection of devices is called The ‘Internet of Things’ (IoT). IoT is spreading rapidly, with many traditionally non-online devices becoming increasingly connected; products such as mobile phones, fridges, pedometers, coffee machines, video cameras, cars and clothing. The IoT is growing at a rapid rate with estimates indicating that by 2020 there will be over 25 billion connected things globally. As the number of devices connected to the Internet increases, so too does the amount of data collected and type of information that is stored and potentially shared. The ability to collect massive amounts of data - known as ‘big data’ - can be used to better understand and predict behaviours across all areas of research from societal and economic to environmental and biological. With this kind of information at our disposal, we have a more powerful lens with which to perceive the world, and the resulting insights can be used to design more appropriate products, services and systems. It can however, also be used as a method of surveillance, suppression and coercion by governments or large organisations. This is becoming particularly apparent in advertising that targets audiences based on the individual preferences revealed by the data collected from social media and online devices such as GPS systems or pedometers. This type of technology also provides fertile ground for public debates around future fashion, identity and broader social issues such as culture, politics and the environment. The potential implications of these type of technological interactions via wearables, through and with the IoT, have never been more real or more accessible. But, as highlighted, this interconnectedness also brings with it complex technical, ethical and moral challenges. Data security and the protection of privacy and personal information will become ever more present in current and future ethical and moral debates of the 21st century. This type of technology is also a stepping-stone to a future that includes implantable technology, biotechnologies, interspecies communication and augmented humans (cyborgs). Technologies that live symbiotically and perpetually in our bodies, the built environment and the natural environment are no longer the stuff of science fiction; it is in fact a reality. So, where next?... The works exhibited in Wear Next_ provide a snapshot into the broad spectrum of wearables in design and in development internationally. This exhibition has been curated to serve as a platform for enhanced broader debate around future technology, our mediated future-selves and the evolution of human interactions. As you explore the exhibition, may we ask that you pause and think to yourself, what might we... Wear Next_? WEARNEXT ONLINE LISTINGS AND MEDIA COVERAGE: http://indulgemagazine.net/wear-next/ http://www.weekendnotes.com/wear-next-exhibition-gallery-artisan/ http://concreteplayground.com/brisbane/event/wear-next_/ http://www.nationalcraftinitiative.com.au/news_and_events/event/48/wear-next http://bneart.com/whats-on/wear-next_/ http://creativelysould.tumblr.com/post/124899079611/creative-weekend-art-edition http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/smartly-dressed-the-future-of-wearable-technology/6744374 http://couriermail.newspaperdirect.com/epaper/viewer.aspx RADIO COVERAGE http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/wear-next-exhibition-whats-next-for-wearable-technology/6745986 TELEVISION COVERAGE http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/wear-next-exhibition-whats-next-for-wearable-technology/6745986 https://au.news.yahoo.com/video/watch/29439742/how-you-could-soon-be-wearing-smart-clothes/#page1

Corporate America And The New Luminous Environment: Kelly’s work with Johnson, Mies, and Noyes

[book] The potential of electric light as a new building “material” was recognized in the 1920s and became a useful design tool by the mid-century. Skillful lighting allowed for theatricality, narrative, and a new emphasis on structure and space. The Structure of Light tells the story of the career of Richard Kelly, the field’s most influential figure. Six historians, architects, and practitioners explore Kelly’s unparalleled influence on modern architecture and his lighting designs for some of the 20th century’s most iconic buildings: Philip Johnson’s Glass House; Louis Kahn’s Kimbell Art Museum; Eero Saarinen’s GM Technical Center; and Mies van der Rohe’s Seagram Building, among many others. This beautifully illustrated history demonstrates the range of applications, building types, and artistic solutions he employed to achieve a “nocturnal modernity” that would render buildings evocatively different at night. The survival of Kelly’s rich correspondence and extensive diaries allows an in-depth look at the triumphs and uncertainties of a young profession in the making. The first book to focus on the contributions of a master in the field of architectural lighting, this fascinating volume celebrates the practice’s significance in modern design.

The Science and Art of Light

Architecture today often is praised for its tectonics, floating volumes, and sensational, gravity-defying stunts of “starchitecture.” Yet, very so often there is a building that inspires descriptions of the sublime, the experiential, and the power of light and architecture to transcend our expectations. The new Meinel Optical Sciences Research Building, designed by Phoenix-based Richärd+Bauer for the University of Arizona, Tucson, is one of these architectural rarities. Already drawing comparisons to Louis Kahn's 1965 Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California, the indescribable quality of light that characterizes the best of Kahn's work also resonates in Richärd+Bauer's new building. Both an expansion and renovation of the existing College of Optical Sciences facilities, the Meinel building includes teaching and research laboratories, six floors of offices, discussion areas, conference rooms, and an auditorium. The new 47,000 square-foot cast-in-place concrete structure, wrapped on three-sides in copper-alloy panels, harmonizes with the largely brick vocabulary of the campus while reflecting the ethereal quality of the wide Arizona sky. The façade, however, is merely a prelude for what awaits inside—where light and architecture seamlessly combine to create moments of pure awe.

Highlight: Yale University Art Gallery

Modern architecture, with its exposed concrete, glass, and steel expanses, does not age gracefully. The Yale University Art Gallery, designed by architecture great Louis Kahn, is no exception. As Yale's first modernist building, completed in 1953, and Kahn's first major commission and collaboration with pioneering lighting designer, Richard Kelly, the gallery is an important part of American architecture. Yet, despite its iconic status, the building suffered numerous architectural indignities in the years following its completion, including the insertion of permanent gallery partitions, which divided Kahn's open plan, and the enclosure of an exterior court, which blocked daylight to the lower galleries.

The last avant-garde?: Disability arts and (rethinking) mobility

Taking as its starting point a remark by Turner Prize nominee Yinka Shonibare that disability arts is “the last avant garde”, this panel focuses on the role of aesthetic experimentation in disability arts and the possible rethinking of the relationship between avant-garde aesthetic strategies and inclusive arts. Points of connection between the avant-garde and disability arts include a rejection of traditional aesthetic forms, the development of aesthetic strategies appropriate to non-normative bodies, politics and populations and the implications of these ideas for the conference themes. This panel is intended as a facilitated discussion involving researchers and artists undertaking work in this area. The panel will begin with some brief provocations reflecting on the implication of Shonibare’s comment. For example, Gerard Goggin will discuss three projects by Antoni Abad with artists and activists with disability in Barcelona, Geneva and Montreal as part of Abad’s Megaphone project, a decade-long, global digital art project. Bree Hadley will speak on performative interventions in public space, performance art, live art, activism and culture hacking by artists with disabilities, such as pwd's online performances, and artist’s performative responses to the austerity agenda in the US, UK, and Australasia. Eddie, Lachlan and Sarah will discuss ideas arising from their work on the project Beyond Access: The Creative Case for Inclusive Arts, which involved research with six Melbourne-based artists/artistic companies with disability, supported by Arts Access Victoria. Chair: Dr Eddie Paterson (School of Culture and Communication, Faculty of Arts, University of Melbourne) Dr Bree Hadley (Creative Industries, QUT) Professor Gerard Goggin (Professor of Media and Communication and ARC Future Fellow, University of Sydney) Dr Lachlan MacDowall (Head, Centre for Cultural Partnerships, University of Melbourne). Sarah Austin (PhD candidate, Theatre/Centre for Cultural Partnerships, VCA and MCM) Artists (tbc, based on existing relationships with artists developed in the Beyond Access research).

Theatre, networked performance, and notions of ‘democratised’ spectatorship

The potential to cultivate new relationships with spectators has long been cited as a primary motivator for those using digital technologies to construct networked or telematics performances or para-performance encounters in which performers and spectators come together in virtual – or at least virtually augmented – spaces and places. Today, with Web 2.0 technologies such as social media platforms becoming increasingly ubiquitous, and increasingly easy to use, more and more theatre makers are developing digitally mediated relationships with spectators. Sometimes for the purpose of an aesthetic encounter, sometimes for critical encounter, or sometimes as part of an audience politicisation, development or engagement agenda. Sometimes because this is genuinely an interest, and sometimes because spectators or funding bodies expect at least some engagement via Facebook, Twitter or Instagram. In this paper, I examine peculiarities and paradoxes emerging in some of these efforts to engage spectators via networked performance or para-performance encounters. I use examples ranging from theatre, to performance art, to political activism – from ‘cyberformaces’ on Helen Varley Jamieson’s Upstage Avatar Performance Platform, to Wafaa Bilal’s Domestic Tension installation where spectators around the world could use a webcam in a chat room to target him with paintballs while he was in residence in a living room set up in a gallery for a week, as a comment on use of drone technology in war, to Liz Crow’s Bedding Out where she invited people to physically and virtually join her in her bedroom to discuss the impact of an anti-disabled austerity politics emerging in her country, to Dislife’s use of holograms of disabled people popping up in disabled parking spaces when able bodied drivers attempted to pull into them, amongst others. I note the frequency with which these performance practices deploy discourses of democratisation, participation, power and agency to argue that these technologies assist in positioning spectators as co-creators actively engaged in the evolution of a performance (and, in politicised pieces that point to racism, sexism, or ableism, pushing spectators to reflect on their agency in that dramatic or daily-cum-dramatic performance of prejudice). I investigate how a range of issues – from the scenographic challenges in deploying networked technologies for both participant and bystander audiences others have already noted, to the siloisation of aesthetic, critical and audience activation activities on networked technologies, to conventionalised dramaturgies of response informed by power, politics and impression management that play out in online as much as offline performances, to the high personal, social and professional stakes involved in participating in a form where spectators responses are almost always documented, recorded and re-represented to secondary and tertiary sets of spectators via the circulation into new networks social media platforms so readily facilitate – complicate discourses of democratic co-creativity associated with networked performance and para-performance activities.

Privacy architectures in social networks’ state-of-the-art survey

The use of social networking has exploded, with millions of people using various web- and mobile-based services around the world. This increase in social networking use has led to user anxiety related to privacy and the unauthorised exposure of personal information. Large-scale sharing in virtual spaces means that researchers, designers and developers now need to re-consider the issues and challenges of maintaining privacy when using social networking services. This paper provides a comprehensive survey of the current state-of-the-art privacy in social networks for both desktop and mobile uses and devices from various architectural vantage points. The survey will assist researchers and analysts in academia and industry to move towards mitigating many of the privacy issues in social networks.

HealthMap: A cluster randomised trial of interactive health plans and self-management support to prevent coronary heart disease in people with HIV

Background The leading causes of morbidity and mortality for people in high-income countries living with HIV are now non-AIDS malignancies, cardiovascular disease and other non-communicable diseases associated with ageing. This protocol describes the trial of HealthMap, a model of care for people with HIV (PWHIV) that includes use of an interactive shared health record and self-management support. The aims of the HealthMap trial are to evaluate engagement of PWHIV and healthcare providers with the model, and its effectiveness for reducing coronary heart disease risk, enhancing self-management, and improving mental health and quality of life of PWHIV. Methods/Design The study is a two-arm cluster randomised trial involving HIV clinical sites in several states in Australia. Doctors will be randomised to the HealthMap model (immediate arm) or to proceed with usual care (deferred arm). People with HIV whose doctors are randomised to the immediate arm receive 1) new opportunities to discuss their health status and goals with their HIV doctor using a HealthMap shared health record; 2) access to their own health record from home; 3) access to health coaching delivered by telephone and online; and 4) access to a peer moderated online group chat programme. Data will be collected from participating PWHIV (n = 710) at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months and from participating doctors (n = 60) at baseline and 12 months. The control arm will be offered the HealthMap intervention at the end of the trial. The primary study outcomes, measured at 12 months, are 1) 10-year risk of non-fatal acute myocardial infarction or coronary heart disease death as estimated by a Framingham Heart Study risk equation; and 2) Positive and Active Engagement in Life Scale from the Health Education Impact Questionnaire (heiQ). Discussion The study will determine the viability and utility of a novel technology-supported model of care for maintaining the health and wellbeing of people with HIV. If shown to be effective, the HealthMap model may provide a generalisable, scalable and sustainable system for supporting the care needs of people with HIV, addressing issues of equity of access. Trial registration Universal Trial Number (UTN) U111111506489; ClinicalTrial.gov Id NCT02178930 submitted 29 June 2014

Diverse bodies-space politics: Towards a critique of social (in)justice of built environment

Writing has long played an important role in the progression of architecture and the built environment. Histories of architecture are written, manifestoes that form the basis for a designer’s work are written and most importantly, the built environment advances itself through the act of critical writing. Not unlike the visual arts, literature and poetry, the tradition of written criticism has been crucial to the progression of architecture and its allied professions (Franz 2003). This article contributes to architecture and the built environment through the act of a written essay that critiques the problem of bodily diversity to architecture. In particular, the article explores the implications of body-space politics and abstracted body thinking on diverse bodies and their spatial justice. Using Soja’s Spatial Justice theory (2008), we seek to point out the underlying conceptions and power differentials assigned to different bodies spatially and how this leads to spatial injustices and contested spaces. The article also critically analyses the historical emergence of ‘the standardised body’ in architecture and its application in design theory and practice , and looks at how bodies often found on the outside of architecture highlight how such thinking creates in justices. Different theories are drawn on to help point to how design through the use of the upright, forward facing, male bod willingly and unwillingly denies access to resources and spatialities of everyday life. We also suggest ways to re-conceptualise the body in design practice and teaching.

(Failed) voluntary euthanasia law reform in Australia: Two decades of trends, models and politics

Within Australia, there have been many attempts to pass voluntary euthanasia (VE) or physician-assisted suicide (PAS) legislation. From 16 June 1993 until the date of writing, 51 Bills have been introduced into Australian parliaments dealing with legalising VE or PAS. Despite these numerous attempts, the only successful Bill was the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995 (NT), which was enacted in the Northern Territory, but a short time later overturned by the controversial Euthanasia Laws Act 1997 (Cth). Yet, in stark contrast to the significant political opposition, for decades Australian public opinion has overwhelmingly supported law reform legalising VE or PAS. While there is ongoing debate in Australia, both through public discourse and scholarly publications, about the merits and dangers of reform in this field, there has been remarkably little analysis of the numerous legislative attempts to reform the law, and the context in which those reform attempts occurred. The aim of this article is to better understand the reform landscape in Australia over the past two decades. The information provided in this article will better equip Australians, both politicians and the general public, to have a more nuanced understanding of the political context in which the euthanasia debate has been and is occurring. It will also facilitate a more informed debate in the future.